Forest Ecosystems under climate change
Volga State University of Technology
1. Introduction
The publication in a peer reviewed compendium of research articles "Forest ecosystems under climate change: biological productivity and remote monitoring" along with the communication provides coherent and respected network of knowledge. This document outlines the best practice principles of expected ethical behavior by different groups involved in the procedure of publishing including authors, the peer reviewers, editors and professional societies. The main principles are: honesty in all aspects of research, transparency and open communication, excellence in research practice, respect of all participants in and subject of research.
Publication ethics of the editorial board is in line with Code of Ethics for Research Publications developed and approved by the Committee of Publication Ethics established at the Russian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information Sciences (VINITI) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the recommendations of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE- Code of Conduct).
2. Code of Ethics for Authors
The manuscripts must not be submitted or published elsewhere in whole or in part. Authors must not submit the same work at the same time to two or more publications outlets while the manuscript is under review by the journal.
Authors of the manuscripts take full responsibility for the validity of research and the objective discussion of research significance. Authors must carefully check all the calculations, mathematical formulae, provided empirical outcomes, data based provisions and interpretation of results. The authors must agree with all the stages of the paper submission process. This applies to additions, exclusions and changes made in the order of the authors names.
Should any person make a significant contribution into the research implementation he/she should be cited in the manuscript’s Acknowledgement and/or must be included in the list of co-authors. The Acknowledgement section should contain the sources of support/funding if relevant.
The manuscripts must be original work. Authors must provide relevant bibliographic references for using in part or citing the copyright protected or third parties’ works in a manuscript.
Authors should acknowledge the contributions of other parties. Authors must always provide references for publications that are relevant to the work carried out. The editorial board reserves its right to reject the article if it violates the intellectual rights of third parties, norms of scientific ethics or contains information of limited access, with notification to authors and affiliation.
Should any person make a significant contribution into the research implementation he/she should be cited in the manuscript’s Acknowledgement and/or must be included in the list of co-authors. The Acknowledgement section should contain the sources of support/funding if relevant.
The manuscripts must be original work. Authors must provide relevant bibliographic references for using in part or citing the copyright protected or third parties’ works in a manuscript.
Authors should acknowledge the contributions of other parties. Authors must always provide references for publications that are relevant to the work carried out. The editorial board reserves its right to reject the article if it violates the intellectual rights of third parties, norms of scientific ethics or contains information of limited access, with notification to authors and affiliation.
3. Code of Ethics for Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief takes due regard to the suggestions of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the editorial board aiming to improve the journal. He/she respects the honor and dignity of authors, correctly conducts correspondence, providing benevolence, offers assistance to authors if necessary, in choosing the journal for publication. Editor-in-Chief respects confidentiality without disclosing information to third parties concerning the manuscript submitted to the editorial board of the journal, with the exception of reviewers. Editor-in-Chief maintains correspondence with authors in a confidential manner, as well as the content of negative reviews, which are reported only to the author.
Editor-in-chief makes a decision to publish the article on the basis of a peer review carried out by independent reviewers, qualified experts in the relevant field of knowledge, and opinions of the editorial board members. Evaluation of works must be exclusively based on validation of results, relevance of the topic, and its appropriateness for researchers and readers. Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of Authors.
Confidential information, received in the process of reviewing, is not subject to disclosure or use in personal interests. In case of interest conflict, editors must refuse to consider the submitted article. Any recommendations for citing works must be based on their scientific importance and pursue the aim of improving the submitted material.
Editor-in-chief is responsible for violations of publication ethics, including the cases of plagiarism, falsification of data or results. Therefore, he/she carefully examines these data at any stage of the publication process. If the violation is reveled before the article is published, the manuscript is rejected. If the violation is revealed after the article is published, then the journal publishes amendments or a notice of its recall in the forthcoming issue.
Confidential information, received in the process of reviewing, is not subject to disclosure or use in personal interests. In case of interest conflict, editors must refuse to consider the submitted article. Any recommendations for citing works must be based on their scientific importance and pursue the aim of improving the submitted material.
Editor-in-chief is responsible for violations of publication ethics, including the cases of plagiarism, falsification of data or results. Therefore, he/she carefully examines these data at any stage of the publication process. If the violation is reveled before the article is published, the manuscript is rejected. If the violation is revealed after the article is published, then the journal publishes amendments or a notice of its recall in the forthcoming issue.
4. Code of Ethics for Editorial Board
The Editorial Board must consider all the manuscripts submitted for publication, without bias against their authors (national or religious affiliation, official position, etc.). Editors should provide Authors with all the necessary assistance aiming to improve the quality of works submitted through scientific review and article editing.
Editorial board undertakes to make fair and impartial decisions, independent on commercial interests, and organizes the process of objective review.
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one, due to competitive joint or other relations with Authors, companies and, possibly, other organizations related to the manuscript.
The members of the Editorial Board adopt editorial policies that ensure maximum transparency and greater accountability of Authors; if the processes of review and consideration takes more time, the Authors are notified thereof. In case of a manuscript rejection or its follow-up revision, the Editorial Board provides the grounds of this decision; the materials with incorrect references and/or matching content are rejected.
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one, due to competitive joint or other relations with Authors, companies and, possibly, other organizations related to the manuscript.
The members of the Editorial Board adopt editorial policies that ensure maximum transparency and greater accountability of Authors; if the processes of review and consideration takes more time, the Authors are notified thereof. In case of a manuscript rejection or its follow-up revision, the Editorial Board provides the grounds of this decision; the materials with incorrect references and/or matching content are rejected.
5. Peer Review
Scientific review of authors’ materials must be objective, fair and professional, compliant with scientific and ethical standards.
Every submitted article undergoes two blind reviews: by members of the editorial board and by one independent external anonymous expert who may freely express motivated critical comments about the level and clarity of the presented material, its relevance to the profile of the journal, the novelty and reliability of results.
Personal criticism of Authors and the use of slanderous and defamatory arguments in the review are unacceptable. If there is a conflict of interests, the reviewer is obliged to declare this to the Editorial Board and refuse to review the manuscript.
A reviewer must be specific in his/her criticism and support the review with proofs and relevant references in order to help editors give the correct assessment and make a proper decision with regard to the paper. The review provides a motivated enumeration of positive qualities and shortcomings of the material, its general assessment and recommendation for the Editorial Board.
Personal criticism of Authors and the use of slanderous and defamatory arguments in the review are unacceptable. If there is a conflict of interests, the reviewer is obliged to declare this to the Editorial Board and refuse to review the manuscript.
A reviewer must be specific in his/her criticism and support the review with proofs and relevant references in order to help editors give the correct assessment and make a proper decision with regard to the paper. The review provides a motivated enumeration of positive qualities and shortcomings of the material, its general assessment and recommendation for the Editorial Board.
6. Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism is defined as “using someone else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement”. It is both poor scholarship and a breach of academic integrity. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
The Compendium does not tolerate plagiarism in any forms, and reserves the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism, either by contacting the relevant editor or editor in chief.
The Compendium does not tolerate plagiarism in any forms, and reserves the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism, either by contacting the relevant editor or editor in chief.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
Authors submitting a manuscript to the Compendium, editors and reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication. Conflicts of interest are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the presentation, review and publication of a manuscript. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual or personal in nature.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
We also expect that anyone who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding a work published or under consideration by the Compendium should inform the relevant editor or editor- in-chief.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
We also expect that anyone who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding a work published or under consideration by the Compendium should inform the relevant editor or editor- in-chief.
8. Duplicate and Redundant Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Duplicate or redundant publication, or ‘self-plagiarism’, occurs when a work, or substantial parts of a work, is published more than once by the author(s) of the work. This can be in the same or a different language. Redundant publication can occur when there is substantial overlap between two or more publications without appropriate cross-referencing or justification for the overlap. The authors and editors of the Compendium concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of duplicate or redundant publication, either by contacting the relevant editor or editor-in-chief.
9. Author fees
Publication in the Compendium is free of charge for all authors.
10. Data Fabrication/Falsification and Image Manipulation
Data fabrication concerns the making up of research findings and their interpretation. Data falsification is manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. Where research data are collected or presented as images, modifying these images can sometimes misrepresent the results obtained or their significance. This includes manipulating images (e.g. graphs, remote sensing images), removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, adding or omitting data points, etc.
The Compendium expects authors to avoid fabrication/falsification data and modifying images where this leads to the falsification, fabrication, or misrepresentation of their results.
11. Archiving
Compendium deposits each issue that it publishes in multiple hard drive digital archives and online clouds to guarantee long-term digital preservation. In the event of technical problems with the main server (Volgatech), they will be easily recovered.
12. Retractions and Corrections
Compendium editors will consider retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the Compendium will issue a corrigendum. The editors may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during typesetting or proofreading.
Where any content is retracted, we would do so in a way that still preserves the integrity of the academic record and of other affiliated works (for example, other volumes in a series). This includes maintaining any associated metadata and the abstract.
Здесь тоже можно
прокручивать колесиком мыши
прокручивать колесиком мыши